Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265580AbTF3IQI (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 04:16:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265278AbTF3IQI (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 04:16:08 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:50819 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265580AbTF3IPH (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 04:15:07 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: , "Andre Hedrick" Cc: Subject: RE: Dell vs. GPL Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:29:24 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1828 Lines: 38 > Well, I couldn't possibly comment on that, but my original point stands; > that pursuit of GPL violation must be pursued by the copyright _holder_, > unless they assign that copyright to subsequent third-party beneficiaries. > which technically I don't think they do, they merely grant a right to make > copies in perpetuity, subject to the conditions of the GPL (or something > like that) > > right ? If you phrase it as a pursuit of a license violation, yes. But that's not what the suit would look like. You wouldn't be accusing them of violating your copyright rights, you'd simply be accusing them of withholding from you a benefit that was secured for you in a contract. That the contract involved copyright rights is not important because you're not pursuing the copyright rights. In other words, you're not accusing them of a copyright violation, you're accusing them of a contract violation. Specifically, they entered into a contract (which named you as an intended beneficiary), took what the contract offered them but failed to provide you the benefit the contract secured you. If I sell you my car, but the contract stipulates that you must let my grandmother drive on the first Saturday of the month, and you don't let her do that, she can sue you. She wouldn't be arguing that you stole the car or defrauded me in the sale. She'd simply argue that you received valuable compensation in exchange for a benefit you were to provide to her, and that you failed to provide her that benefit, and thus you're liable for her damages or must provide the benefit. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/